7 ms·

This is not the voter’s fault. In a functioning democracy, there is a system to approve a text by popular vote instead of the usual parlement. So the question a

This is not the voter’s fault. In a functioning democracy, there is a system to approve a text by popular vote instead of the usual parlement. So the question at such a vote should always be: “do you approve the proposed text?”, then the text becomes law. By organizing an abstract opinion poll, the government just prepared a shit show, there no way to make any significant chunk of the population happy, everybody had a different view of brexit.

ajuc 8y ago
> This is not the voter’s fault. Yes it is. Asked "do you want to fundamentally change status quo in some random yet to be decided way that most experts warn you will result in chaos" population should have voted "no". Population would have voted "no" if just a few more young people cared enough to get their asses to the voting booths. The lessons from Brexit are the same as the lessons from Trump in USA, Kaczyński in Poland, Orban in Hungary: 1. vote 2. don't vote populists. 3. don't disregard warnings of experts. 4. don't buy conspiracy theories. 5. don't engage in witch hunts against minorities and don't vote people who do so. It's not a lot to expect of people. It's the bare minimum if democracy is to work at all. Cameron is at fault too, of course. Shouldn't have played with the fire. But some politicians will play with fire if there's a profit to be made and power to get. It's the voters who have to stop them, not the other way.
- gdgegeg 8y ago
  While generally in agreement, the "youth didn't vote" scapegoating is incorrect - their turnout numbers were roughly the same as other demographics. I really don't rate the Guardian for all of its content, this particular article explains well and is reasonably sourced https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-people-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-peopl...
  - benj111 8y ago
    Thanks for this, it's something I hadn't heard before. Wouldn't exit polls record the ages of voters though? Seems strange that there's so little data on this.
- everdev 8y ago
  I think the problem is that consensus (51.9%) was made at the 30k ft. / 9km view (leave the EU). The details were left to be sorted out later and that's where all the trouble is. If the details of Brexit were included in the referendum, there wouldn't be any trouble in implementing it. But, you can bet that the ~half of voters that wanted Brexit aren't even in agreement on how to implement it, let alone trying to gain the support of all those that never wanted it to begin with. In the end the referendum was more of an opinion poll than legislation that voters could analyze and make an informed decision. I don't think you can fault the voters for answering the questions put to them. It's not like the ballot comes with a comment box: "I want independence from the EU, but I'm also concerned that you didn't think through how to implement it." They just vote Yes and expect politicians to do their job.
  - cal97g 8y ago
    It was a strategy of the tory government to be as ambiguous as possible about what brexit would actually mean, how it would be implemented, what the details are. Their aim was to cause uncertainty and dissuade people from voting leave.
- sintaxi 8y ago
  It stands to reason that the EU would not agree with the decision. If a "no deal" is the only way it can be done then that is what is done. That's what the people voted for. Britain is the second largest net contributor to the EU next to Germany. Britain will be absolutely fine.
  - ajuc 8y ago
    > It stands to reason that the EU would not agree with the decision. But EU agreed to the decision? UK didn't. > Britain will be absolutely fine. We will see I guess :)
  - moystard 8y ago
    Eventually it probably will (brexiters seem to think in 25 / 50 years time, which is apparently a good price to pay for Brexit...). However, the UK will lose the huge amount of influence it has at the moment on the world stage, will be pressured by bigger economies to accept unfavorable trade deals and deregulation (US food standards, VISAs, etc) and its manufacturing will be severely damaged; it could possibly collapse entirely. The irony is that this will likely create a wave of unemployment in the very regions that voted in favour of Brexit. But regardless of the consequences, if you think people voted for a "no deal" when they voted Brexit, you are deluded. Let's illustrate my point with a few quotes: "The free trade agreement that we will ahve to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history" - Liam Fox - 2017 "Getting out of the EU can be quick and easy - the UK holds most of the cards in any negotiation" - John Redwood - 2016 "Within minutes of a vote for Brexit, CEO's would be knocking down Chancellor Merkel's door demanding access to the British market" - David Davis 2016 “It is also true that the single market is of considerable value to many UK companies and consumers, and that leaving would cause at least some business uncertainty, while embroiling the Government for several years in a fiddly process of negotiating new arrangements, so diverting energy from the real problems of this country – low skills, low social mobility, low investment etc – that have nothing to do with Europe.” - Boris Johnson 2016 As you can see, no deal is far from the position that was pushed to the people, even after the vote had occurred. Saying people voted for a "no deal" because they voted for Brexit is disingenuous. Long gone is the time of "Having our cake and eat it"
- bookbinder 8y ago
  Why is ajuc's comment being downvoted?
  - ajuc 8y ago
    Cause I was mistaken about young people turnout? Or just people don't like bashing them for voting populists :)
    - hardlianotion 8y ago
      This is an emotive topic and there is a large amount of downvoting-is-disagreement going on.
- kristianc 8y ago
  > Population would have voted "no" if just a few more young people cared enough to get their asses to the voting booths. I don't understand the need to youth-bash here. Turnout for young people was pretty similar to that of older demographics. There was a generational gap in how people voted, but not so much in whether they voted or not. [1] https://www.opinium.co.uk/did-young-people-bother-to-vote-in-the-eu-referendum/ https://www.opinium.co.uk/did-young-people-bother-to-vote-in... In fact, turnout was 64% among 18-24 year olds and 65% among 25-39 year old, which is closer to the population average than could have been expected.
- mdpopescu 8y ago
  1. vote 2. don't vote populists Poe's law again. What's up with these posts? Voting, at its core, is a popularity contest. How exactly do you NOT vote for populists?
  - ajuc 8y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism > Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell define populism as an ideology that "pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous 'others' who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice". I don't have problems recognizing politicians propagating such views. Do you?
_nalply 8y ago
That's what Switzerland does. Just today I voted about an energy act, a police act and a residence planning act. I admit that I didn't study the law texts carefully. Instead I read the neutral explanation of the government and both explanations of the pro and contra committees and decided whether the reasonings convinced me or not. So even in Switzerland you could get the proverbial shit show if someone managed to convince the people with misleading arguments, and I am afraid this already happened a few times.
- m_mueller 8y ago
  be careful with that "neutral explanation". in the last one we got told that private agents hired by social insurances may only observe clients in public spaces, while the law text actually says "public spaces and what's observable from there". i.e. pretty much any Swiss inhabitant can now be put under surveillance in their private homes without any judge order.
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    This would be considered abuse and such interpretation would likely get thrown out as justification for active surveillance. The law pertains to truly passive surveillance only. And trying to use such evidence in court could be repealed then as obtained illegally. (Surveillance without a warrant.) The spirit of the law is to allow reasonably incidental recording only. A zoom camera pointed at your window is not covered, neither are directional microphones etc. Law is not an algorithm. It is executed by judges and jurors. (Note: not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc.)
    - C1sc0cat 8y ago
      That would depend on the wording and on legal precedent in the UK some civil service pensioners had changes to their pensions because the wording of the scheme of arrangement used a different three letter word than some other pensioners.
    - m_mueller 8y ago
      When it comes to surveillance I don't put any trust in the system other than what's strictly allowed / disallowed according to law text. Remember Fichen?
dmurray 8y ago
I don't see how this could reasonably have been done in the Brexit case. You would have to spend years negotiating the terms of the withdrawal first, then ask the people for a yea or nay. That negotiation would go totally differently if the UK government couldn't credibly claim it had a mandate from the people for the withdrawal.
- jrumbut 8y ago
  In retrospect, it didn't go all too well with the mandate either.
  - pavlov 8y ago
    In a functioning parliamentary democracy, the proper order of actions for Brexit would have been: 1) UKIP (or a coalition of Brexit-minded parties) wins general election. 2) PM Nigel Farage opens withdrawal negotiations with the EU. 3) 2+ years later, with a complete withdrawal agreement on the table, a referendum is held on whether to accept the deal. 4) If at least 50% of voters support the withdrawal agreement, it comes into effect within two months. This is not a pipe dream — it's exactly how the countries who joined EU in 1995 did it. David Cameron is entirely to blame for this ongoing sad charade that makes a mockery of UK's democratic processes.
    - C1sc0cat 8y ago
      2/3rds or 75% not 50% plus 1
- rmc 8y ago
  In a way they did just that. David Cameron negotated some changes to EU law (minor tweaks), and said to the British people: "I went to the EU and got these changes, shall we stay in or leave?"
- nraynaud 8y ago
  That’s what they did on the “European constitution”. On Maastricht, on schengen.

ajuc 8y ago

> This is not the voter’s fault. Yes it is. Asked "do you want to fundamentally change status quo in some random yet to be decided way that most experts warn you will result in chaos" population should have voted "no". Population would have voted "no" if just a few more young people cared enough to get their asses to the voting booths. The lessons from Brexit are the same as the lessons from Trump in USA, Kaczyński in Poland, Orban in Hungary: 1. vote 2. don't vote populists. 3. don't disregard warnings of experts. 4. don't buy conspiracy theories. 5. don't engage in witch hunts against minorities and don't vote people who do so. It's not a lot to expect of people. It's the bare minimum if democracy is to work at all. Cameron is at fault too, of course. Shouldn't have played with the fire. But some politicians will play with fire if there's a profit to be made and power to get. It's the voters who have to stop them, not the other way.

gdgegeg 8y ago
While generally in agreement, the "youth didn't vote" scapegoating is incorrect - their turnout numbers were roughly the same as other demographics. I really don't rate the Guardian for all of its content, this particular article explains well and is reasonably sourced https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-people-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-peopl...
- benj111 8y ago
  Thanks for this, it's something I hadn't heard before. Wouldn't exit polls record the ages of voters though? Seems strange that there's so little data on this.
everdev 8y ago
I think the problem is that consensus (51.9%) was made at the 30k ft. / 9km view (leave the EU). The details were left to be sorted out later and that's where all the trouble is. If the details of Brexit were included in the referendum, there wouldn't be any trouble in implementing it. But, you can bet that the ~half of voters that wanted Brexit aren't even in agreement on how to implement it, let alone trying to gain the support of all those that never wanted it to begin with. In the end the referendum was more of an opinion poll than legislation that voters could analyze and make an informed decision. I don't think you can fault the voters for answering the questions put to them. It's not like the ballot comes with a comment box: "I want independence from the EU, but I'm also concerned that you didn't think through how to implement it." They just vote Yes and expect politicians to do their job.
- cal97g 8y ago
  It was a strategy of the tory government to be as ambiguous as possible about what brexit would actually mean, how it would be implemented, what the details are. Their aim was to cause uncertainty and dissuade people from voting leave.
sintaxi 8y ago
It stands to reason that the EU would not agree with the decision. If a "no deal" is the only way it can be done then that is what is done. That's what the people voted for. Britain is the second largest net contributor to the EU next to Germany. Britain will be absolutely fine.
- ajuc 8y ago
  > It stands to reason that the EU would not agree with the decision. But EU agreed to the decision? UK didn't. > Britain will be absolutely fine. We will see I guess :)
- moystard 8y ago
  Eventually it probably will (brexiters seem to think in 25 / 50 years time, which is apparently a good price to pay for Brexit...). However, the UK will lose the huge amount of influence it has at the moment on the world stage, will be pressured by bigger economies to accept unfavorable trade deals and deregulation (US food standards, VISAs, etc) and its manufacturing will be severely damaged; it could possibly collapse entirely. The irony is that this will likely create a wave of unemployment in the very regions that voted in favour of Brexit. But regardless of the consequences, if you think people voted for a "no deal" when they voted Brexit, you are deluded. Let's illustrate my point with a few quotes: "The free trade agreement that we will ahve to do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history" - Liam Fox - 2017 "Getting out of the EU can be quick and easy - the UK holds most of the cards in any negotiation" - John Redwood - 2016 "Within minutes of a vote for Brexit, CEO's would be knocking down Chancellor Merkel's door demanding access to the British market" - David Davis 2016 “It is also true that the single market is of considerable value to many UK companies and consumers, and that leaving would cause at least some business uncertainty, while embroiling the Government for several years in a fiddly process of negotiating new arrangements, so diverting energy from the real problems of this country – low skills, low social mobility, low investment etc – that have nothing to do with Europe.” - Boris Johnson 2016 As you can see, no deal is far from the position that was pushed to the people, even after the vote had occurred. Saying people voted for a "no deal" because they voted for Brexit is disingenuous. Long gone is the time of "Having our cake and eat it"
bookbinder 8y ago
Why is ajuc's comment being downvoted?
- ajuc 8y ago
  Cause I was mistaken about young people turnout? Or just people don't like bashing them for voting populists :)
  - hardlianotion 8y ago
    This is an emotive topic and there is a large amount of downvoting-is-disagreement going on.
kristianc 8y ago
> Population would have voted "no" if just a few more young people cared enough to get their asses to the voting booths. I don't understand the need to youth-bash here. Turnout for young people was pretty similar to that of older demographics. There was a generational gap in how people voted, but not so much in whether they voted or not. [1] https://www.opinium.co.uk/did-young-people-bother-to-vote-in-the-eu-referendum/ https://www.opinium.co.uk/did-young-people-bother-to-vote-in... In fact, turnout was 64% among 18-24 year olds and 65% among 25-39 year old, which is closer to the population average than could have been expected.
mdpopescu 8y ago
1. vote 2. don't vote populists Poe's law again. What's up with these posts? Voting, at its core, is a popularity contest. How exactly do you NOT vote for populists?
- ajuc 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism > Daniele Albertazzi and Duncan McDonnell define populism as an ideology that "pits a virtuous and homogeneous people against a set of elites and dangerous 'others' who are together depicted as depriving (or attempting to deprive) the sovereign people of their rights, values, prosperity, identity, and voice". I don't have problems recognizing politicians propagating such views. Do you?

_nalply 8y ago

That's what Switzerland does. Just today I voted about an energy act, a police act and a residence planning act. I admit that I didn't study the law texts carefully. Instead I read the neutral explanation of the government and both explanations of the pro and contra committees and decided whether the reasonings convinced me or not. So even in Switzerland you could get the proverbial shit show if someone managed to convince the people with misleading arguments, and I am afraid this already happened a few times.

m_mueller 8y ago
be careful with that "neutral explanation". in the last one we got told that private agents hired by social insurances may only observe clients in public spaces, while the law text actually says "public spaces and what's observable from there". i.e. pretty much any Swiss inhabitant can now be put under surveillance in their private homes without any judge order.
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  This would be considered abuse and such interpretation would likely get thrown out as justification for active surveillance. The law pertains to truly passive surveillance only. And trying to use such evidence in court could be repealed then as obtained illegally. (Surveillance without a warrant.) The spirit of the law is to allow reasonably incidental recording only. A zoom camera pointed at your window is not covered, neither are directional microphones etc. Law is not an algorithm. It is executed by judges and jurors. (Note: not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc.)
  - C1sc0cat 8y ago
    That would depend on the wording and on legal precedent in the UK some civil service pensioners had changes to their pensions because the wording of the scheme of arrangement used a different three letter word than some other pensioners.
  - m_mueller 8y ago
    When it comes to surveillance I don't put any trust in the system other than what's strictly allowed / disallowed according to law text. Remember Fichen?

dmurray 8y ago

I don't see how this could reasonably have been done in the Brexit case. You would have to spend years negotiating the terms of the withdrawal first, then ask the people for a yea or nay. That negotiation would go totally differently if the UK government couldn't credibly claim it had a mandate from the people for the withdrawal.

jrumbut 8y ago
In retrospect, it didn't go all too well with the mandate either.
- pavlov 8y ago
  In a functioning parliamentary democracy, the proper order of actions for Brexit would have been: 1) UKIP (or a coalition of Brexit-minded parties) wins general election. 2) PM Nigel Farage opens withdrawal negotiations with the EU. 3) 2+ years later, with a complete withdrawal agreement on the table, a referendum is held on whether to accept the deal. 4) If at least 50% of voters support the withdrawal agreement, it comes into effect within two months. This is not a pipe dream — it's exactly how the countries who joined EU in 1995 did it. David Cameron is entirely to blame for this ongoing sad charade that makes a mockery of UK's democratic processes.
  - C1sc0cat 8y ago
    2/3rds or 75% not 50% plus 1
rmc 8y ago
In a way they did just that. David Cameron negotated some changes to EU law (minor tweaks), and said to the British people: "I went to the EU and got these changes, shall we stay in or leave?"
nraynaud 8y ago
That’s what they did on the “European constitution”. On Maastricht, on schengen.